If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You never see them stopping middle-aged white women!
This is the correct answer. Its about reminding the peasants about their place in society. That and nothing more.
As i said before i get your point, doesn't mean i have to fully agree with it.
Labour did something wrong, alright, but it had nothing to do with internal security. What Labour did wrong was to embark in an illegal war against the wishes of almost the entire planet.
Incidentally, does your claim means you admit the Bush administration is shit at their national security too, seeing what they allowed to happen in September 2001?
Wow the metropolitan police have really gone down the pan! :rolleyes:
There are signs at the station explaining these checks, and they aren't mandatory. I was approached a couple of weeks ago and asked, I explained that I would be late for work and was told that was fine.
It is for a number of reasons aside terroism. The carrying of knives, guns and other 'anti social items' for example/
funnily enough I usually see that quote from people defending the right to tool yourself up with enough armanents to take out your average third world army.
So is that what you too are advocating?
How could you use it that way?
right to bear arms
they can also be used to defend yourself agaist a tyrannical government
if you can own knives you can own guns, even if you have to aqquire a license to own it
making handguns in this country illegal only drived them into the wrong hands
Yes, but you're the one with the quote - so either you do value security over liberty (at least in certain circumstances) or you're posting something you don't agree with...
Revolutions are fought and won when members of the public and ordinary people, including low-rank soldiers and members of the police, decide enough is enough and march/fight/demonstrate against the powers that be. AK47s held by trailer park weirdoes are not needed.
Possibly true if you ignore the Russian Revolution, Mao and the Chinese, etc, etc, all of which would led by a revolutionary vanguard and not the mass of the people.
But that still doesn't answer the point - either you believe that you should have absolute liberty include the right to bear arms or you say that at times you believe that liberty should be curtailed for the good of society. I make no bones that I don't want gun ownership to be legalised and quite happily believe Ben Franklin was talking complete bollocks
Random searches are done almost purely to intimidate, something the Police shouldn't be doing.
I was trying to imply subtley with the "..." finish to my post that actually i have as much to fear as anyone, i should have said, "I have nothing worry about...or do I?"
Because its my right as an individual to own what I want without the Government interfering. OK if I wanted an AK-47 because I was planning to shoot my neighbour there's certainly a strong claim that his right to life, outweighs my right to bear arms.
But what happens if I want to hold a weapon for other reasons, perhaps I have I'm a woman living on my own in a rough neighbourhood and want protection, perhaps I want to do target shooting, perhaps its a momento of my time soldiering and it looks nice on my wall. If we have liberty I should be allowed to do these things...
However you can quite rightly counter that it might be stolen by a criminal to use in murder, or my children might find it and decide to play cops and robbers with live weaponary, or that I wake up and go postal, or that I'm drunk and decide to clean it whilst there is a round in the chamber. So the ownership of weapons threatens people's security.
So we don't allow people to own weapons because the threat to others security is greater.
You're right that there's lot we can't do because it either does or potentially may impact on others. Which does make a mockery of using Ben franklin's quote - unless you're willing to allow total freedom and drop security. But then I believe Franklin was talking bollocks and it is an overused quote which people use to support the freedoms they want and ignore when they want security.
The people who run the country- civil and criminal- have plenty of armaments.
The voice of reason ( or was that Thomas Paine, NQA
I don't have any problem with drawing lines whatsoever, and further more I see myself as champion of freedoms and liberties as the next fella.
I don't either - which is why for the third time I mention that Franklin was talking bollocks.
The fact is that being selective about the freedoms we believe in doesn't mean that we're anti-liberty, but I don't think it hurts to acknowledge the fact.